Counter to Brigitta Wallace's rebuttal of my critique of the Smithsonian's Vikings: The North Atlantic Saga. This covers points 1-17 of my original critique - it was written to Dr. Fitzhugh of the Smithsonian with the idea that he had Wallace's rebuttal on hand. I have not rewritten it, so there may be some areas of confusion, but I believe that the casual reader will still be able to follow the general flow.
1) Wallace makes three references to people who claimed that Ohman was a stonemason. Two of these cases come from Elbow Lake where, according to Flom "There had been current for some time a rumor at Elbow Lake of a Swede who worked near there thirty years ago [or circa 1880] who was versed in runes and used to cut runes into window casings, and other objects and derived much amusement from being able to puzzle people with these strange characters. It has not been possible to verify it, or learn who this man was."
It is curious that she used the term "closest friends" regarding those critics in Elbow Lake, when the only report given (by Flom) is "some of his oldest acquaintances". This is an example of the sort of semantic tampering that frequently occurs in Wallace's writing on the runestone.
Wallace also notes that Ohman probably had chisels. This is quite correct, he was certainly a carpenter of some sort and almost undoubtedly had chisels. It is quite a different matter as to whether he had the sort of chisels used in cutting stone, which is quite different from a wood chisel. Both Ohman's son, and the sons of his neighbor, Flaten, have specifically stated that he did not.
2. Wallace notes that her original text for the article reads "In November (some say August) 1898, while digging stumps on his land..." and this is correct. However the in the 2nd printing of the book, the incorrect point that the affidavits said November remains unchanged.
3. Wallace admits the stone was exhibited in Kensington not Alexandria, but this again remains unchanged in the book.
4. Wallace points out correctly that on Mar 2, 1899 an article on the runestone (reprinted from a Minneapolis paper) did appear in the Alexandria Post. This is not exactly what was intimated though in the book:
5. As above, I note that there were no printed translations of the runestone appearing before Breda's translation of Feb 22, 1899. Wallace notes only that Sam Siverts apparently sent an unpublished translation to the Minneapolis Journal prior to Feb 22, which was as the journals states. "made shortly after the discovery of the stone."
6. Wallace shows that the Svenska Amerikanska Posten article of Feb 28, 1999 claims that Ohman made the copy of the runes and that Hedberg sent the copy on to the Posten. I retract the claim that there is no evidence of Ohman's making the copy.
7. In the same quotation used for number 6, Wallace shows that my point, which was that the copy was sent to the Posten first, is correct. Unchanged in the book.
8. My letter: "Breda's first name was Olaus, not Olof"
9. The original text that Wallace proposed was "Breda concluded that it was modern, with numbers that were not proper runic numbers." So the that the book was (and still is) incorrect in saying that Breda's conclusion was the the stone was false because "it contained numbers that were not proper runic numbers.
10. There is a dispute here over the term "amateur". Wallace defends this term by saying it is not derogatory, and that it simply means someone who does not derive their "livelihood from their work in this field." However Holand was at this time doing research on a book from which he did, I assume, eventually make money at therefore this at least must have been considered somewhat professional.
11. Wallace quotes here from Holand's autobiography that he did to talks "on pioneers" not Norwegian history. Nor is it stated specifically that he was doing such talks during the time he first got involved with the Kensington runestone. But I do not have access to the book in question, so I will have to let this go, subject to further examination.
12. Point admitted by Wallace. Unchanged in book.
13. Admitted by Wallace, who also points out the unrelated fact that Holand accompanied Hoeg to Kensington in June, 1909. Unchanged.
14. Wallace and I agree that Holand's influence was essentially limited to the linguistic realm and not the report as a whole. Curiously, though, she adds that it was because Holand's influence that Winchell concluded the Almquist grammar found in Ohman's possession was insignificant. The Almquist volume was given to J A Holvik for study and it was his letter that was included in the Historical Society report. That letter concluded that "the difference in rune systems, and the so-called 'errors' in the inscription... make it evident that there was no connection between the inscription on the Kensington Rune Stone and the book bearing the name Sv. Fogelblad."
Wallace seems to me to have the tendency to do some truly excellent research, and then waste it on errors such as this which could have been avoided with just a brief reexamination of the basic source documents.
15. The only rebuttal here is from a letter by van Dyke who is commenting that in 1899 when he had difficulty conversing with Ohman. It is reasonable to assume from the statements of Winchell and Blegen which I cited, that Ohman learned some English in the intervening decade.
16. The original phrasing by Wallace was that "The Winchell investigation revealed, however, that Olof Ohman did indeed know runic writing..." rather than the report.
17. My letter: "There is nothing in the report which suggests that Ohman had an interest in history."
She does make the point that Ohman had a bound volume newspaper clippings containing the a Swedish history. What she surmises, but is not in evidence, is that Ohman actually clipped and bound the volume. The name of J Hedberg also appears on the book. There is no indication there whether Hedberg or Ohman clipped and bound the book. It is certainly possible that Ohman received the volume from Hedberg after the runestone was found.
I do concede that Ohman, as Wallace notes, may have been a more intellectual man than some others have surmised. He certainly seems to have been intelligent. In regards to his reading habits, we have the following from an interview with his son.
It was specifically to investigate such rumors that Winchell went to Elbow Lake in March of 1910. Indeed, one of the people making the accusations that Ohman carved stones, new runes and so on suggested that O. F. Olson might know something about this. In addition to talking to people in Elbow Lake, Winchell also talked to Olson prior to making his statement that "there seems to be no truth nor basis for this rumor..."
Olson was living in Brandon, MN at the time that Winchell interviewed him. Winchell's notes for the date he was in Brandon give the following: "'Most people about here do not think that Ohman had any thing to do with the stone' and 'that the stone is all right.' Ohman has not been known to be a stone mason. He is a carpenter."
In his investigation of Ohman's supposed rune writing, Winchell would ask those spreading the rumor whether they had actually seen Ohman making runes. It can be assumed that he used the same principal at Elbow Lake and Brandon - if so, there seem to be no legitimate reports of anyone actually having seen Ohman carving stone.
Wallace here appears to prefer using the rumors of a time 30 years past to support her point rather than the actual investigation of the rumors in trying to support her point. She also must ignore the testimony of Ohman's sons, most immediate neighbors, and numerous other residents of Kensington who also note that Ohman was not a stone mason.
Wallace uses one other support, a 1971 letter to her from an "M. Richardson". This letter is unpublished, and Wallace does not quote directly from it so it is impossible to tell exactly what Richardson said, or whether Wallace's used the same twisting of words that made an old acquaintance into a closest friend.
"The stone created a sensation. It was exhibited at a local bank in Alexandria, and newspaper articles publishing translations of the text appeared in local newspapers. A transcription... was sent to Professor Olaf Breda..."
Apparently only one newspaper printed one story after the stone was sent to Breda, and that only a reprint from another paper. The book would suggest that numerous translations were appearing in print even before a copy of the inscription was sent off, and that these translations were done locally. This is simply not true.
Wallace then lists several translations which appeared after Breda's translation was printed, essentially proving my point. This remains unchanged in the book.
As an additional note, the first printed translation by Breda was made in "Ariel" a University of Minnesota weekly magazine on Jan 14, 1899.
Wallace: "This error has been corrected in the second printing."
2nd printing: "Olaf Breda"
Wallace's original still suggests however that the numbers used on the stone are incorrect. Breda himself later admitted that the numbers were used on runic primstav calendars, and so are correct 'runic' numbers.
Admittedly, Holand was not specifically employed as a historian, though he was (as given by Wallace under the next point) elected as the historian for a Norwegian cultural society, and did apparently make money doing lectures of a historical nature.
The investigation, as revealed in Winchell's notebook and report, reveals that he investigated rumors about Ohman's supposed knowledge of runes. He could only find one person, Gunder Johnson who actually made the claim that he had ever seen Ohman use runes, roughly 27 prior. In a letter published in the final report of the Historical Society, Hans Voigt maintains that he "made on a piece of wood some marks which were, after a fashion, to represent runes, as he says. So it seems to me that it is this incident which has popped up in Mr. Johnson's memory."
This is not even evidence that Ohman knew anything about runes, let alone confirms knowledge of runic writing. Wallace here attempts to establish rumor as fact, and tries to cite as evidence the report of Winchell which actually takes the contrary view.
Wallace also notes that Ohman had seen the Forsa ring which contained a runic inscription.
Wallace makes no rebuttal of this point. She does not cite any instance from the report or the investigation which shows that Ohman had any interest in history.
"Richards: Did he ever study the runic language
Ohman: No. But he did read a lot toward his old age though.
Richards: After the stone was found?
Ohman: O yes, when he got older so he couldn't work"
(Interview with Edward Ohman, Dec 28, 1949. Transcript on file at Minnesota Historical Society)